Peter Blaikie: Guns, gun culture, and madness in the United States

Peter Blaikie, Special to The Gazette01.03.2013

Some of the remaining memorial items to Sandy Hook Elementry students and staff who died in Newtown, Conn., Thursday, the same day classes resumed at an alternative campus described by police as “the safest school in America.”TIMOTHY A. CLARY
/ AFP/Getty Images

Peter Blaikie is a Montreal lawyer and former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

How have the mighty fallen. For some time now it has been a common belief that, in a great many ways, the United States is a dysfunctional country. But in one area — in its attitude toward guns and gun culture — a large part of America can only be described as deranged.

In the wake of the horrifying Newtown massacre, and in addition to genuine grief and mourning, there has been great deal of hopeful rhetoric and the beginnings of action. But only time will tell whether the rhetoric will lead to serious action and direct confrontation with the National Rifle Association and its hordes of supporters.

As evidence of the extent to which those hordes are deranged, one need only consider some of the arguments used against any real attempt to control guns:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” In the most banal sense, that is accurate. More fundamentally, it is specious rubbish. People do use means other than guns to kill. But only guns — and more specifically semi-automatic weapons — can kill and wound dozens of people within minutes.

“No series of laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” Once again the statement is largely true; but it is also irrelevant. The recent series of massacres in the United States, although crimes, have not been carried out by criminals in any ordinary sense of that word. In any event, most murders by career criminals are gang-related, although they may create innocent victims as well.

“No laws will prevent killings.” This is a classic example of the perfect-solution fallacy. Essentially what is being argued (without being admitted) is that, since no solution is perfect, we should do nothing.

“Americans need to bear arms to protect themselves against the government.” This argument, which has only recently shown up in the mainstream media, is the summum of absurdity. While there are many reasons to be dissatisfied with the government of the United States, it can hardly be taken seriously that Americans need AK-47s or AR-15s to defend themselves against their elected officials. (Though it must be noted that, in the debates more than two centuries ago surrounding the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, and for many decades thereafter, this was a concern of supporters of “states’ rights,” who feared an over-powerful central government.)

Any rational person would have expected, following the recent massacres culminating in the horror of the Newtown shootings, that there would have been a pause in gun purchases in the U.S. What has happened? Following both the Aurora, Colo., theatre shooting and the Newtown massacre, sales of semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 spiked instantly. Can this be called anything other than deranged? It is like hoarding against the apocalypse!

Following the Aurora massacre there were suggestions that, if only everyone in the theatre had been armed, the result would have been different. Quite so: there would have been a great many more deaths. Now, following Newtown, the suggestion is being made that teachers be armed. Are they mad? If the idea were not so absurd, and the circumstances not so tragic, one might think this was the basis of a Saturday Night Live skit.

“The United States has a long history of violence and an embedded gun culture.” The conclusion, although left unsaid, is that nothing can (or should) be done to change things. It is nothing more than a pathetic justification for inaction.

It is true that the country was created through armed revolution; that it was settled, in large part, by a series of Indian Wars; that it fought a horrific civil war; and that it has always tended to glamorize its gangsters. Does this mean that gun culture is immutable and uncontrollable? Slavery was, for generations, part of America’s culture; that changed. Segregation persisted until well into the last century, but that has changed too. Women were denied the vote and other rights until they fought for them — not with guns but with the power of ideas. Change is possible.

Let’s look at the much-cited Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment must be seen in the context of its ratification as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights. The supporters of states’ rights were concerned by the possibility of excessive power being put into the hands of a standing army controlled by the federal government. There was legitimate concern that the British would not accept the result of the War of Independence and, furthermore, that there might be insurrections led by Loyalists or others. For well over a hundred years, the Second Amendment was not only uncontroversial, but led to very few judicial challenges. It was generally accepted that, at least in some sense, there was a link between “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” and a “well-regulated Militia.”

In 2008, the Second Amendment was, for the first time (in a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller), held to protect an individual’s right to own a weapon unconnected to service in a militia. It was a 5-to-4 decision, with strong dissenting opinions. And it is clear from a reading of the Heller decision that the Supreme Court was not endorsing the unlimited right to own weapons of any kind for any purpose. Quite properly, the court decided only the specific case before it. One can fairly conclude from a reading of Heller, together with the history of the Second Amendment, that even the current conservative U.S. Supreme Court would not be an obstacle to reasonable gun-control legislation.

The real problem lies with cowardly politicians.

Given the existence of the Second Amendment, banning private ownership of all guns — as has largely been done in Britain, Japan and many European countries — would be, however desirable, impossible. What, then, can be done?

First, at every opportunity, the absurdities written and spoken by the NRA and its “no-gun-control” acolytes and supporters must be challenged and exposed as fatuous claptrap.

The example of the Tea Party must be adopted to (borrowing from Lady Macbeth) screw to the sticking-place the courage of those politicians who favour reasonable gun control but fear the gun lobby. It should be made clear to them, and to every politician who opposes gun control, that they will be challenged at every turn, including at party primaries. Franklin Roosevelt’s ringing words, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” must be used against the gun lobby.

Laws should be adopted banning the manufacture and sale of all automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons and multiple-bullet magazines to all but the military and law-enforcement agencies.

It should be made illegal for any unauthorized person to acquire or own any such weapons or ammunition. This should apply even to items acquired before the passage of these laws. An amnesty should be provided for those who turn in their weapons within a period of perhaps a year, with reasonable and even attractive compensation. Subsequently, anyone continuing to possess such weapons or ammunition should be subject to severe penalties.

There should be far more wide-ranging background checks and registration requirements for all purchases of weapons and ammunition of any kind, including sales in secondary markets.

Three caveats are necessary. First, as always, the devil is in the details; however, it would be tragic if the impetus for legislation were to get mired in a procedural or nitpicking swamp. Second, it would be folly to suggest or expect that such laws, even if adopted, would fully solve the problem of guns in America. Third, it must be made absolutely clear that no attack is intended against the legitimate use of weapons for hunting, target shooting or appropriate self-defence; none of the weapons that should be banned fit into these categories.

It is probably true that none of this will happen unless much of the initiative comes from women. It is primarily women who have kept alive the memory of the École Polytechnique massacre of 1989. Consider also the example of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Polling, especially since the Newtown tragedy, indicates that women, African Americans and Hispanics overwhelmingly support gun-control laws. It would appear they are far wiser than white American men.

It’s interesting to speculate on what the reaction of the men who created the United States and framed its constitution would be to the status of guns in their country today. I have absolutely no doubt that it would be this: “Are you out of your minds?”

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.